Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
On 06 July 2005, about 90 management representatives of national government
agencies and officers of local unions in these agencies, as well as leaders of three
major public sector union federations in the country, namely the Confederation of
Independent Unions (CIU), the Philippine Government Employees Association (PGEA),
and the Public Sector LINK (PSLINK), gathered in the U.P. School of Labor and
Industrial Relations to discuss, clarify, debate, share experiences, and dialogue on
implementation and transition issues relative to Executive Order 366 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The activity - National Dialogue on
Government Rationalization: Addressing Implementation and Transition Issues – was
convened to: (1) gather representatives from affected government agencies, their
unions and heads of agencies to a national dialogue with the officers of the
Department of Budget and Management, Civil Service Commission, and related
agencies; (2) clarify what the EO 366 and its IRR mean to workers in terms of
employment, security of tenure, working conditions, and the options available to
those who will be affected as well as retained in the service; (3) surface doubts,
apprehensions and confusions on the IRR and EO 366; (4) share “impact mitigating”
strategies or options for affected and how to take advantage of these options; (5)
provide a venue where heads of agencies and workers could discuss a process of
transition from the present situation to an “EO 366 rationalized” organization,
including the need for a communication plan and concessions between management
and workers to soften the impact of rationalization; and (5) clarify the role and
participation of workers and their unions in the entire process at different levels
within an agency and in various phases of the program.
The Dialogue came in two parts. The morning sessions were devoted to a
presentation of the Government Rationalization Program by Atty. Anicia De Lima,
Director of the Civil Service Commission, and a presentation of a paper entitled “EO
366 and Its IRR: Public Sector Unions’ Issues and Concerns”, prepared by the U.P.
SOLAIR Center for Labor Justice (CLJ). The presentation was done by Mary Leian C.
Marasigan, University Extension Specialist of U.P. SOLAIR. The dialogue and open
discussion came in the afternoon. Undersecretary Laura Pascua and Director Amelita
Castillo of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Assistant Secretary
Tonette Allones and Assistant Secretary Padilla, both of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), and Atty. Anicia De Lima of the CSC, actively engaged in the
dialogue and open discussion with the public sector union representatives.
1
Based on the proceedings of the National Dialogue on Government Rationalization:
Addressing Implementation and Transition Issues, convened by the U.P. School of Labor and
Industrial Relations (U.P. SOLAIR) and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) Philippine Office, 06
July 2005, SOLAIR Auditorium, U.P. Campus, Diliman, Quezon City.
Important points were clarified in the Dialogue. The unions articulated their
issues, concerns and apprehensions about the rationalization program. The DBM and
the CSC panelists addressed the unions’ concerns and noted those that they could not
readily address in the Dialogue, committing to study and come up with appropriate
action on certain concerns, e.g. funding and access to credit for impact mitigating
programs such as livelihood loans and entrepreneurial skills development. Many of the
participants noted with appreciation the sharing of experiences of some of the union
and management representatives relative to the processes they (the latter) adopted in
coming up with their respective rationalization plans.
==========================================================================
2
Based on the presentation of Atty. Anicia De Lima, Director, Civil Service Commission.
4
Marasigan, Basa and Ofreneo (2005).
What are the areas of anxiety of unions relative to EO 366 and its IRR?
1. Additional Union Representation in the CMT and sub-CMT
" The Confederation of Independent Unions (CIU) recommends that at least
two union representatives – one regular and one alternate – be allowed to
join the CMT and sub-CMTs to ensure that in all meetings, there shall be at
least one union or worker representative present.
2. Availability of Funds
" The unions are worried that the fate of those affected by the
rationalization will be similar to the many who availed of voluntary
retirement schemes in the past who had to wait several years before
receiving their retirement pay.
Unions would like to secure assurance from the DBM that funds are
available and ready to be disbursed on the day of an employee’s
retirement.
3. Personnel Actions
" Presidential and political appointees must be the first to go. In the past
reorganization efforts, though positions were dissolved, others were
created by political actions, especially at the top management level.
" Before any position is abolished, the CMT should first phase out unfilled
positions, some of which have been vacant for years. Unused positions may
really be unnecessary in the first place.
1. How to enable full participation of public sector unions and associations in the
CMTs and sub-CMTs to ensure that the issues and concerns spawned by the
Rationalization Program (RP) would be properly addressed.
b. There is strong call for full representation of agencies or lower levels at the
CMT and sub-CMTs. Process must not be sacrificed. People must not be rushed
in making decisions.
Panel response: CSC proposed that attached agencies should field a common
representative to enjoy full and equal representation either in the CMT or sub-
CMT level.
The DOST union shared their experience, that they have four union
representatives in the CMT.
DOLE shared its experience in ensuring that their Rationalization Program (RP)
will be successfully implemented. There was full union participation in the CMT
Central and the processes and decisions were communicated with complete
transparency down the rank-and-file. The CMT’s maxim was “combat
disinformation with information”. It was made clear that RP involved review of
functions and not people to allay fears and anxieties. DOLE conducted the
following:
- Strengthened the field offices and operations because job seekers were
in the localities. Decentralization was effected with creation of
provincial agencies.
- CMT conducted workshops to surface all issues and concerns on
proposed staffing patterns.
- Plans were validated in all the offices down the line.
- Conducted on-the-job enrichment programs so that personnel affected
would be assigned where they want.
5
Highlights of the Dialogue in the afternoon.
a. EO 366 is a World Bank dictate hence does not serve national interest.
b. Those in high government positions such as Asecs and Usecs should bear the
brunt of RP, hence they should be the first to go and not low wage salaried
workers.
c. Too many will be displaced especially the vast number of casuals and
contractuals who will just add up to the vast army of unemployed.
d. There aren’t enough safety nets to cushion the impact of RP. The government
is suffering from a fiscal crisis, the national treasure is bankrupt and there is
not enough or sufficient money to cover payments of separations and
terminations and incentives.
f. Population is increasing and there is even greater need to hire than lay off
employees.
g. DBM may not have the constitutional mandate to push through with RP.
Panel Response: The panelists were more or less one in saying that
rationalization is not synonymous with termination as erroneously perceived. It
is mainly voluntary and enough leverage is given to employees who will be
displaced to choose from variety of options. DBM has sufficient funds allotted
for the RP. Safety nets were being put in place to mitigate the impact of the
RP program. It is the functions that are being reviewed and not intended to
discriminate employees.
3. Clarifying questions and comments were raised by participants who argued that
their existing programs should be exempted from RP. Among them are the
following:
a. DOST has a continuing training and scholarship program which could not be
stalled by RP. The department wants clear-cut policies or guidelines on this.
For instance, some applicants for scholarship could not be endorsed because
the agency they are attached to may be abolished or affected by RP.
Panel Response: One solution forwarded to solve the above is for the agency
concerned to create a Personnel Development Committee to handle cases of
c. There is need to clarify if RP can take precedence over the Magna Carta for
Teachers. Some teachers were transferred to other schools where there is a
high ratio of student population to number of teachers or placed in
administrative positions where they do not fit.
Panel Response: Teachers are not covered by RP and the Magna Carta for
Teachers must be upheld above EO 366. CSC is trying to relieve teachers in
administrative functions and assigned in schools near their homes.
4. There are still a lot of gray areas in the implementation of the RP that need to
be clarified and put under scrutiny. Some of the relevant questions refer to:
a. Need to clarify if generic titles that superseded previous job titles would affect
the work patterns and work load of affected employees.
Panel Response: This is not allowed. There are other funding institutions that
could be tapped to take care of livelihood, loan grants or entrepreneurship
trainings.
5. Finally DBM was asked if there is any salary increase for next year. The DBM
officials were not able to give a categorical answer. Instead, they pointed out
that the granting of salary increase may depend on whether the new VAT law
will be implemented and enough savings will be generated from the
Rationalization Program.
What strategies should agencies consider in mitigating the possible adverse impact of
rationalization?
Agencies may consider the following:
! Give workers in the public sector appropriate financial incentives as well as
develop a comprehensive Human Resource Development package.
6
Marasigan, Basa and Ofreneo (2005).
What strategies should the union explore and pursue in pushing for a union
perspective in the rationalization program?
! Union leaders, at different levels of the department, including those in its
bureaus, units, agencies, etc. must become knowledgeable of EO 366 and its
IRR. Information must be disseminated by the national union as soon as
possible and questions must be sufficiently and properly answered.
! Aside from knowledge of EO 366 and its IRR, unions must also assert their right
to participate in the Change Management Team and not be left out of the
process.
! As part of the CMT, unions should also study their own organizations, especially
their functions, mandates and profiles of their personnel. Knowing these, the
union representative in the CMT will be in a better position to participate in
the discussion and if need be, persuade the team to adopt proposals from the
perspective of employees or the unions.
! As part of the CMT, union representatives should likewise ensure that impact-
mitigating interventions such as livelihood skills development training, fund
management and job facilitation assistance will be provided to those affected
employees. Transition issues from a pre- to a post-rationalized organization
such as workload and performance should be discussed in the CMT.
Prepared by:
Melisa R. Serrano
Rosalinda C. Mercado